Is Don Luskin Really This Dumb?

[Composed Thinker]

Who is he kidding here?

KRUGMAN'S PRINCETON SUED FOR $525 MILLION Talk about "duped and betrayed <http://www.pkarchive.org/column/060603.html>"! Talk about "bait and switch <http://www.pkarchive.org/column/110100.html>"! William Robertson, the man who gave $525 million to Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs(where Paul Krugman teaches) has sued to get his money back, according to a Washington Post story<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59147-2003Oct7.html> today. The reason? The school isn't sending enough graduates into federal government work, which was Robertson's purpose in the gift. He says
"Princeton has known for decades that the goal of our foundation is to send students into federal government, and they've ignored us...Princeton has abused the largest charitable gift in the history of American higher education and that's embarrassing. They will lose the money."
Krugman's school, of all places, should want to give more to the federal government, right...? Thanks to zoogler <http://goobage.blogspot.com/> for the link.

And then he goes on:

KLING ON KRUGMAN There's been a lot of chatter on the web, and I've gotten lots of emails from readers, concerning Arnold Kling's open letter to Paul Krugman <http://www.techcentralstation.com/100703B.html> posted yesterday on Tech Central Station. I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth -- it's great to see an economist take on Krugman in public. But truth be told, I think Kling's critique fails to come to grips with what's wrong with Paul Krugman.

Kling sets up a framework in which economic propositions can be argued in two different styles. What he calls "Type C" arguments are about the consequences of a particular policy ("tax cuts will stimulate the economy"). What he calls "Type M" arguments are about the motives behind a particular policy ("tax cuts are just a sop to rich Republicans").

Kling believes that Krugman cheapens economic discourse by failing to make Type C arguments (which can be debated rationally, if not to a definitive conclusion), in favor predominantly of Type M arguments (which defy rational debate, and crowd out analysis of real policy dynamics).

[Drifter]

1. Sounds like a communist plan ...

Didn't Russia at one time choose the careers of its citizens.

Cheers
Drifter

[Composed Thinker]

2. Huh?

[liberalhistorian]

3. What IS it with Luskin and his obsession with

Krugman? Every time I turn around, it seems he's bashing Krugman. Did Krugman look at Luskin's wife the wrong way once or what? Even for a wingnut, his obsession seems pretty strong.

[Evil_Dewers]

4. I know who Krugman is.

But who the fuck is Don Luskin? And why should I care what Donnie thinks about Krugman?